Volume 1997,
Issue 357,
1997

Whatever one's moral views on the issue of tax avoidance may be, it is only natural for a taxpayer to try to minimise his tax liability. The Commissioner has no general authority to ignore tax schemes as he is not above the law. He may, however, ignore tax schemes in terms of common law if the scheme is a mere pretence and does not reflect the true intention of the parties. This is referred to as the 'Substance over form' principle. Apart from provisions in the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (the Act) aimed at the combating of specific instances of tax avoidance, the Act also contains a general anti-avoidance provision, namely s 103(1).

While the trial of Jesus Christ may not have enjoyed the same television coverage as that of OJ Simpson, both have captured the collective imagination. The accused in the former did not enjoy the protection of a justifiable Bill of Rights. However he was afforded rudimentary rules of natural justice and a trier of fact and Jaw who sought a rational, if not fair, outcome. In both trials the truth was an issue yet the outcome different. Pilate showed concern for the truth yet other factors may have intervened for him to enter a verdict of guilty against Christ. In the case of OJ Simpson different factors may have intervened to subordinate the discovery of the truth, an aim stressed particularly by the prosecution. Indeed in her argument to exclude the evidence that detective Mark Fuhrman had perjured himself by denying his use of the 'N' word, OJ Simpson's prime accuser, Marcia Clark, declared: 'This is a search for the truth. but it's a search for the truth of who committed these murders, your Honour ... ï¿½ (see Alan Dershowitz Reasonable Doubts (New York: Simon and Shuster 1996) at 35).